Evaluate the Claim that Italy was unified in name only by 1861?

Question 1

Argument For – Substantial progress had been made for Italian Unification

Answer 1

Perspectives: “The new Italian state was an important factor in the creation of a modern Italian identity, based on a shared history, language, and culture that had been largely absent in the pre-unification period” - Denis Mack Smith

• Emergence of a unified state called “Italy”, proclaimed in March 1861
• This is due to the breadth of territories covered –> (All of modern Italy, excepting Rome and Venetia)
• This increase in territory was also supplemented with a desire for this new state to emerge –> there was an element of national consciousness
• After Garibaldi slaughtered people in the military campaigns, plebiscite in Tuscany held to see what the people wanted –> 750 K people voted for the creation of a new state and only 15000 were against

Question 2

Alternative perspectives the argument that substantial progress had been made

Answer 2

• Voters in Sicily were unsure what they were voting for
• 99% of the people who voted for Italian Unification believed they were voting for the end of the Bourbon Monarchy of Naples
• Just because a state is created does not mean that they were united
• Marriot –> “Italy was note, in 1870, ready for political unification”

Nevertheless, –> There are truths in these objections, but they are not forceful enough to overturn the achievements of the Unification of Italy

Question 3

Not in name only because of disunity

Answer 3

• Brigands War whereby 25,000 people dodged military service and turned to brigandage in the immediate aftermath of the proclamation of Italy
• Civil War- esque, which required 100k troops to stop
• Harry Hearder describes the Brigands War as “savage brutality…on both sides”
• Suggests that Piedmont had to essentially push for unity by themselves (coercion = no real Italian national feeling)
• 2.5% of Italians actually spoke Tuscan Florence Italian (the national language)

Question 4

Perspectives to the idea that Italy was disunified?

Answer 4

• Darby “Piedmont’s institution was imposed on the peninsula”, however “there seemed to be no other alternative”
• Therefore, Piedmontese dominance and imposing their will was necessary: If it were not for the Piedmontese army that helped Prussia to defeat Austria then we might not have seen Unification

Question 5

In name only because of territory

Answer 5

• Many implications: Rome is symbolically important to Italy + many speakers of Italian were outside of their territory (214,000 to be exact)
• ‘Rome question’ - Pope still had Rome
• Garibaldians suggest that Italy could not be complete without Rome

Question 6

Perspecti

Answer 6

• Does no Rome = Name only —> This shows incomplete Unification
• The absence of Roman and Venetian territory is not such an important problem as it first appears —> If not for the impressive work done in proclaiming a land of Italy in 1861, they could not have been incorporated so readily in 1870 and 1866 respectively
• Harry Hearder supports this point —> “By February 1861, 2’191 Bourbon officers had been given commissions in the Italy army” —> Rapid integration —> Venice and Rome conquered quickly
• The extension of the Piedmontese Statuto to the rest of the peninsula, accompanied by voting rights, a central government, and a new legal code mean that the process of integration in 1866 and 1870 was an uncomplicated affair.